Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

I posted the links to thhose e negative reviews because they are so utterly and completely negative that they stand out as odd.

Just being facetious. Two of those reviews were written to generate hits, but McCarthy is legit. The Playlist has given it a C+ and Rotten Tomatoes has again chosen to translate that as "rotten". Odd indeed.

Any explanation in the film why Khan is suddenly a pale Brit with a low voice?

It's been done.

Oh. A credible example in a widely-appreciated film.

Might as well include Richard Pryor as the lead in SOME KIND OF HERO, too. That was casting against type of the kind making Joel Grey's asian in REMO WILLIAMS look politically correct.

It was a joke. I was deliberately posting a ridiculous example from a movie I hated.

I could not care less about Benjamin Cumberbatch's skin tone in the movie. All I care about is his performance, which from everything I've seen so far looks to be outstanding.

__________________'First Contact' is the tale of a man who just wants to cash in on his creation so he can get wasted on an island full of naked women, but his fans keep insisting that he's a saintly visionary who has profoundly altered the world. AKA - 'I Don't Want to be a Statue: The Gene Roddenberry Story.'

yeah, but Indians who live in the UK all their lives don't all of a sudden turn as pale as Benedict Cumberbatch!

Put a pic of Cumberbatch and the "Space Seed" Khan side-by-side. Is the skin tone really all that different? (As different as two Saaviks' faces? As different as two Kirk's eye colours? As different as two Cochran's faces?)

But, yeah, Meyers never gave a reason why Khan was all of a sudden pale and blonde in TWOK when he was neither in Space Seed.

He wasn't blond, his hair had gone grey/white. Stress brought on by the changes to Ceti Alpha V, the loss of his wife, failures of the Eugenics tech. All or some of these.

How do people tan? Melanin. What gives some clines darker skin tones? Presence of more melanin. Remove exposure to sunlight and the skin goes paler. Melanin. In STiD, Harrison's melanin has had different exposure to sunlight to Khan of "Space Seed".

My Name Is Legion wrote:

If harping on Cumberbatch's ethnicity is the best the complainers can do, well bless their anxious little hearts. It's monotonous, but bless 'em.

Exactly. What's next? Only gay actors can audition for gay characters? Only blue-eyed actors can audition for blue-eyed characters?

I don't recall too much outrage when Linda Hunt won an Academy Award for playing a male Chinese-Australian photographer, Billy Kwan, in "The Year of Living Dangerously". She was simply the best actor for the job.

YES YES YES
Not to mention that Ricardo was ethnically white being his parents were both white Europeans from Spain not of mixed Meztizo blood
Not that it matters anyway

I am not opposed to change. I was open to each of the series and the films. I am someone who has found something redeeming about the fifth movie - I liked how the trio were depicted as a close knit group of friends. I attempted to be open to Enterprise, but the Temporal Cold War arc left me cold and, I attempted to be open to Voyager, but the lack of interesting stories and character development lessened my interest.

I don't like it when character development is sacrificed for the plot or for special effects. This is a point that TrekMovie raises in their review.

Some of the complaints Abrams’ Star Trek generated have been addressed, yet Into Darkness still plays a bit fast and loose with Trek canon and continues the style of upping the action at the expense of and some character development.

I watched Iron Man 3 today. I liked how they depicted the character development arc of Tony Stark and Pepper Potts. I felt the film had the right balance of action and dialogue. Even minor characters like the kid were given the ability to shine and were given a resolution. And the post-ending credits scene was hilarious. My only complaint is that I wished they mentioned more of what the other Avengers were doing, but I understand why they focused on Stark and this is a minor issue to what I see as a great film. (I have liked the Marvel Universe films. Even the weak ones have something to like.)

I do have a question, which I am crediting to my mother - Supposedly Khan had this blood that could revive life. Bones revives a tribble with this blood, then revives Kirk with Tribble/Khan blood. If Khan had this blood, couldn't have he saved his wife from dying? Perhaps keep her alive, as Mr. Freeze did with his wife until he could find a cure? And, if Khan always had this blood, then how far back does this timeline diverge from the one that we saw in Classic Trek?

Khan's magic blood doesn't mean he could've saved his wife with it, IMO. Who knows, maybe it would've made the Ceti eel even stronger. And maybe Khan didn't have the equipment necessary to remove the blood and inject it into his wife.

According to Memory Alpha, Augments, as compared to normal humans:
* were five times stronger
* were more agile
* were twice as intelligent
* had greater resistant to sickness
* had greater sensoral acuity
* had heart muscles with twice the strength
* had lung efficiency that was 50% better
* had twice the lifespan

All these could be accomplished through advanced genetics. We are already changing the nature of animals and plants through genetics. Given time, we might be able to do the same with humans.

Khan has suddenly, in this new film, become Jesus. He has this remarkable dunamis that, if tapped, could revive the dead. We have moved past genetic re-sequencing and have moved into the supernatural.

According to Memory Alpha, Augments, as compared to normal humans:
* were five times stronger
* were more agile
* were twice as intelligent
* had greater resistant to sickness
* had greater sensoral acuity
* had heart muscles with twice the strength
* had lung efficiency that was 50% better
* had twice the lifespan

All these could be accomplished through advanced genetics. We are already changing the nature of animals and plants through genetics. Given time, we might be able to do the same with humans.

Khan has suddenly, in this new film, become Jesus. He has this remarkable dunamis that, if tapped, could revive the dead. We have moved past genetic re-sequencing and have moved into the supernatural.

Eh, I kinda like that, though. It may not necessarily be "realistic" (though I don't really demand realism from Star Trek) but it definitely gets across the message that Khan is an enhanced being.

All we really saw before was that the Augments were stronger and more resilient. They didn't seem *all* that superior. They were basically human Klingons.

This guy is Nietzsche's superman, though, and that makes him terrifying.

I think what Abrams has done for the franchise is write Trek *as it would be written now*, rather than try to deal with dated concepts. And I feel it works.

According to Memory Alpha, Augments, as compared to normal humans:
* were five times stronger
* were more agile
* were twice as intelligent
* had greater resistant to sickness
* had greater sensoral acuity
* had heart muscles with twice the strength
* had lung efficiency that was 50% better
* had twice the lifespan

All these could be accomplished through advanced genetics. We are already changing the nature of animals and plants through genetics. Given time, we might be able to do the same with humans.

Khan has suddenly, in this new film, become Jesus. He has this remarkable dunamis that, if tapped, could revive the dead. We have moved past genetic re-sequencing and have moved into the supernatural.

Welcome to Star Trek.

__________________
"Stop going on and on about your diet.. Just eat your salad and be sad."

Could say the same for when things stay the same; TFF delivered something very close in many ways to TOS episodes, and yet it is as despised as nearly any other couple hours of trek.

And the last couple of tng movies that seemignly were on autopilot, where you knew after every phaser hit the shields would drop by another 20% ... the more it stayed the same, the more bored we all were.

According to Memory Alpha, Augments, as compared to normal humans:
* were five times stronger
* were more agile
* were twice as intelligent
* had greater resistant to sickness
* had greater sensoral acuity
* had heart muscles with twice the strength
* had lung efficiency that was 50% better
* had twice the lifespan

All these could be accomplished through advanced genetics. We are already changing the nature of animals and plants through genetics. Given time, we might be able to do the same with humans.

Khan has suddenly, in this new film, become Jesus. He has this remarkable dunamis that, if tapped, could revive the dead. We have moved past genetic re-sequencing and have moved into the supernatural.

I don't like it when character development is sacrificed for the plot or for special effects. This is a point that TrekMovie raises in their review.

And I disagree with them. Heaps of character development permeates this new movie! More than we saw in most previous ST movies!

yet Into Darkness still plays a bit fast and loose with Trek canon and continues the style of upping the action at the expense of and some character development.

Have you seen it? No, and you've given away your ticket, if I recall correctly.

What "canon" has been dispensed with, considering this is a new timeline?

throwback wrote:

I am not opposed to change.

Last week you were so opposed to change, you offered up your advanced-sale cinema ticket - for free.

I do have a question, which I am crediting to my mother - Supposedly Khan had this blood that could revive life. Bones revives a tribble with this blood, then revives Kirk with Tribble/Khan blood. If Khan had this blood, couldn't have he saved his wife from dying?

Perhaps Harrison added nanites to his own circulatory system after being revived? He's had years of working for Section 31.

McCoy doesn't use the blood from any of the other 72, he wants to use Khan's.

Or...

Perhaps Khan on Ceti Alpha V had no idea of the qualities of his blood? Marla was sent insane, and then killed, by a Ceti eel boring into her brain. Perhaps not a curable condition.

I am not opposed to change. I was open to each of the series and the films. I am someone who has found something redeeming about the fifth movie - I liked how the trio were depicted as a close knit group of friends. I attempted to be open to Enterprise, but the Temporal Cold War arc left me cold and, I attempted to be open to Voyager, but the lack of interesting stories and character development lessened my interest.

I don't like it when character development is sacrificed for the plot or for special effects. This is a point that TrekMovie raises in their review.

Some of the complaints Abrams’ Star Trek generated have been addressed, yet Into Darkness still plays a bit fast and loose with Trek canon and continues the style of upping the action at the expense of and some character development.

I watched Iron Man 3 today. I liked how they depicted the character development arc of Tony Stark and Pepper Potts. I felt the film had the right balance of action and dialogue. Even minor characters like the kid were given the ability to shine and were given a resolution. And the post-ending credits scene was hilarious. My only complaint is that I wished they mentioned more of what the other Avengers were doing, but I understand why they focused on Stark and this is a minor issue to what I see as a great film. (I have liked the Marvel Universe films. Even the weak ones have something to like.)

I do have a question, which I am crediting to my mother - Supposedly Khan had this blood that could revive life. Bones revives a tribble with this blood, then revives Kirk with Tribble/Khan blood. If Khan had this blood, couldn't have he saved his wife from dying? Perhaps keep her alive, as Mr. Freeze did with his wife until he could find a cure? And, if Khan always had this blood, then how far back does this timeline diverge from the one that we saw in Classic Trek?

That's pretty simple. He never met that wife in this timeline. You do remember how he met his wife in TOS, right? He met her through being revived by the Enterprise crew.

In this timeline, he wasn't revived by the Enterprise crew and so he never meets Marla McGivers. I'm not sure whether she's around or not, or whether Khan is married or not in this timeline. I guess we'll have to keep watching if they bring him back in ST3